For months I have had an exhaustive debate with various colleagues on the ethics of testing for correlations between race and IQ. I have arrived at the conclusion that while current methodological quagmires surrounding the testing render the results of such a study untrustworthy at best and potentially racist at worst, I still think that in the interests of free inquiry such tests proceed. However, the question remains, can a study on intrinsic group differences which is fraught with methodological uncertainty and whose results have relatively narrow applicability have any ethical basis? Are there other considerations for deciding whether such a study should or shouldn't be conducted?

If I make a claim, based on empirical evidence, that itself invokes the existence of unobservable entities (e.g., those which are very small) am I making a supernatural claim? For example, if I claim that there are tiny elephants which act as the smallest building blocks of all that exists, is this supernatural or is it simply a scientific claim, given that we currently do not possess the means to observe existence at this level but we might eventually develop such means?

What kind of scientific evidence, if any, could prove that free-will does not exist?

I have a question about “ghosts” that I am wondering whether a philosopher or two could help me explain. I know it sounds ridiculous even to bring up the topic, which is why I do so only under the cover of anonymity. Let me preface this by saying, as a law student in New Haven with heavily atheist leanings, I don’t think I’m a particularly stupid or superstitious person. But a few years ago I had an experience it is difficult to reconcile with my worldview. On a lark, a friend and I spent the night in a hotel room in Savannah that was reputed to be “haunted.” Naturally, we were expecting nothing to happen there. But curiously, every time we left the room, something inside it moved. (We would go in the hallway, wait a minute or two, and then re-enter.) A banana from the fruit bowl and a tub of shampoo from the bathroom were placed on the bed; my friend’s underwear moved from one corner of the room to a trash can in the other; my friend’s student ID was removed from his wallet and placed on the floor; the...

How can we prove that the Newton's law of Gravity is correct and how can we confirm that the Gravity is really exist?

If I ask "Why is the sky blue?" is that the same question as "What sufficient conditions for the sky being blue are present in the universe?"?

Is it the responsibility of the layperson to align his/her opinion with a scientific consensus (if there is one)? For example, if there is a scientific consensus contending that global warming exists, is it the responsibility of the layperson to assent to that contention? Is it irrational or unjustified for the layperson to dissent in such a situation?

Why does mathematics "work"? How does it manage to describe the physical world?

I would appreciate some recommendations on texts (for a layperson -- a nonprofessional philosopher) whose subject is the philosophy of science.

Working as a scientist one encounters very similar pressures to those encountered by members of religious groups or political parties (pressure to conform, interpersonal relationships being used as leverage etc.), as well as somewhat similar reasoning (appeals to authority, ad hominem attacks etc.). What advice would you give to a junior scientist who wishes to pursue the 'truth', but finds that doing so can lead to personal criticism, isolation and ultimately loneliness (which is not good for his health)? Is it better to be accepted by one's peers or is personal integrity of important when the two clash? Are charges of naivety and quixoticism relevant here? I know these are all somewhat different questions, but an answer to any or just one of them would be most helpful. Thank you in advance.